For decades feminist groups like American Association of University Women have been whining that few women chose career paths into the hard and computer sciences. And like all good Philistines they argue that school-aged girls lacked increased "awareness" and "understanding" of these wonderful jobs. Armed with other forms of social engineering in schools -- including a healthy serving of "affirmative action" in universities -- girls would flock to these high paying jobs.
But it doesn't happen. And decades of social engineering hasn't seemed to make a dent in the rates of participation. Why? Good question, but if you read this Michelle Malkin's entry, you'll see that the women who most benefit from the current conventional wisdom aren't serious about exploring this question:
[Harvard University President Lawrence Summers] made clear that he was simply throwing out theories, summarizing scholarly research, and not himself endorsing any particular hypothesis. So, how did women academics respond to a challenging intellectual discussion? By having a collective emotional snit fit unbecoming of any self-respecting representative of the ivory tower.
I live and work around a lot of women. I'm a librarian, and this is a profession that remains over 90 % women. I live in a blue state, and one of the most educated counties in the country. I'm also no spring chicken, and so you can't argue that I haven't been around long enough. However, I can count on one hand the number of women I've known who chose careers in the hard and computer sciences.
This can't be explained with the Phallocentric Patriarchy excuse. So what is it? Perhaps it's the fucking jobs, folks. They suck, especially the computer jobs. Computer and hard science careers are jam-packed with shitty jobs: long, miserable hours, innumerable, incomprehensible foreigners, and legions of dorky, antisocial men. The only reason why some of those jobs pay so well is that they require 80-hour work weeks and 24/7 on-call status.
More important, young girls know that these are jobs for dorks. The computer kids they know are dorks, and the computer teachers (male or female) are dorks. There is an anti-social accent in the career cultures of many of the hard sciences. Being antisocial is not necessarily bad; it's just the nature of the work. If you're a sommelier you have to have one set of skills; if you're a theoretical mathematician you have another. One requires a little more public interaction than the other.
I also work in a profession that has its fair share of computer nerds. I have worked on database development projects, KM systems development, and other dorky pursuits. The difference lies in the culture. Librarianship is women-friendly. It may not be a really cool job, but it pays well, and it provides a variety of job options such as flexible work hours. It often attracts women my age (mid-30s) who are looking for an alternative to 80-hour work weeks, because they have families. Feminists should be lauding these opportunities, but they don't.
Now I know that someone will call for more studies on the issue, but I can save the government a ton of money by telling our leaders the obvious: if you're interested in having children, you're probably not that interested in working 80-hour weeks in a cold computer room, staring at a screen, and next to a guy who knows way too much about the deck of the Enterprise.
Now, some women like this. That's great, and for them there are opportunities galore. However, only academics, like the ones that haunt the halls of AAUW, could abstract something good out of IT and science jobs that simply isn't there. If you look at the statistics, you couldn't help but think these jobs are great. But statistics aren't reality, and young women aren't stupid.
